leicsmac

Members
  • Post count

    6,414
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

leicsmac last won the day on 25 March

leicsmac had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,395 Excellent

About leicsmac

  • Rank
    First Team

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

5,148 profile views
  1. I would posit that not all under 30s use memes and as such proportionally the political compass of such users is a lot more balanced than you think (or even in the other direction), but that is speculative. I think you're right regarding use of political memes, but my point is that while they may not be a good argument they are not really counter productive in terms of desired results from their generators, I think. As such they play a part in the debate.
  2. The channer/alt right squad (and yes, there is a vast amount of crossover) are utterly infamous for using memes in any kind of debate, political or otherwise. I thought that was common knowledge. Of course, this is a clear example of correlation not equalling causation (they ere definitely not the only group to support Brexit/Trump), but I thought it pertinent to bring up that even though the users of such memes can be as juvenile as you say, such juveniles can easily end up affecting the balance of power in their own way. Which, I think, is quite a commentary on the political sphere today.
  3. And yet, the group most likely to use memes within political debate scored at least two spectacular victories in 2016. Who knew?
  4. To add to the answers already supplied, the Sun will end its Main Sequence phase (run out of hydrogen to burn) in around 5 billion years, reaching it's peak red giant size after about another 2.5 billion (so nearly 7.5 billion years total). However, within 600 million years from now, the luminosity of the Sun will be so much higher that the carbon cycle will be disrupted, leading to a mass die-off of 99% of plants as they will no longer be able to access carbon dioxide. That will pretty much spell the end of complex life on Earth, though simple life may go on for another few hundred million years. "Garden worlds" like our own don't tend to have a massive window of time for life to get to the complex stage sadly (in astronomical terms anyway).
  5. .....no words.
  6. It's an interesting one. It could also be postulated that dividing lines between people and using force to defend them (whether countries, ideologies or whatever) carry a constant risk of conflict anyway, and that conflict could one day escalate to the point of societal collapse/ceasing to exist also. I wonder...which is the bigger threat?
  7. This/this. You can be proud (and also critical) of the place of your birth but why be of your nationality when it is just chance?
  8. BURN THE HERETIC! ...but seriously, try to see it if you can. The English dub is actually pretty good for it too. Princess M and Spirited are definitely up there for me too, as well as MNT. I'm also a fan of Howl's Moving Castle (again, the English dub isn't half bad for that.)
  9. What's your personal favourite Ghibli movie? Castle in the Sky for me...the first and best.
  10. The Witches? Roald Dahl, you gave zero fvcks.
  11. Fantasia and Robin Hood the true classics for me, though if you want to go more modern Inside Out is bloody good. That all being said, Studio Ghibli >>> Disney IMO.
  12. This is fair, but I think there's a difference between defending ourselves and joining in an exchange that will result in the destruction of most of civilisation whether we take part it in or not. (Barring, of course, the idea of a "limited" nuclear exchange which is tenuous at best.)
  13. Why? The point of a conspiracy is the party running the conspiracy have something to gain. These scientists have had no such gain, nor desire one - indeed, they would gain more materially from pushing the narrative of the various nonrenewable energy companies instead - they're the ones with the dough, after all. So...where's the pork?
  14. Man after my own heart. It is true that perception has grown in place of scientific method - what you "feel" or "think" is the truth, even if it clashes with data (though such perception in lieu of empirical evidence forms the cornerstone of religious faith, so it's been around for quite some time I guess.) And that has been used very well recently by both politicians looking to reinforce their power base (again, not really a new trick) and the new wave of YouTube "experts" looking to make a quick buck. It is rather scary and dangerous, especially when it encourages action that is potentially damaging to the future in order to keep the status quo running today, either because it's "ours to do with as we wish" or because "we don't have much of an effect so it doesn't matter" or even "let the ball roll and future generations die - I'll be dead anyway!" It's really really easy to think that the world is never going to change and that tomorrow is going to be very much like today. That way you don't have to think about it much and you can focus on stuff like "should we offer Shakey a permanent post"? But, that's also a really easy to sleepwalk a species - multiple species in fact - into real trouble. But it's also a difficult problem to deal with. People simply don't want to hear that their lives are going to get more difficult either because things are going to change or because we should prepare for that change, and as well as that most scientists are hardly the most charismatic nor the most effective communicators in the same way politicians and the like are...so that's a double disadvantage right from the start. It's easier, much much easier, to just dismiss those experts, often using derogatory terms (particularly if you feel that they've "cried wolf" in the past - anyone remember how that ends?) And to be honest...I'm not sure what the best way to get the message across even is - not at least until the bad stuff does start happening and it becomes clear, by which time it may be too late to help. That brings me what you said about "necessity being the mother of invention". If this were a normal, smaller issue I would agree with you - humanity would be able to adapt, use their smarts and get the job done as they have many times in the past. But given the degree of change that would eventually happen...if we wait until it actually starts happening, I'm not sure we'd be able to adapt to that change in the limited time we would have - not without extreme cost, anyway. As a result of that, I would think that at least a little planning and groundwork should be done. It has really come to something where scientists - who normally go out of their way to be apolitical simply because they don't like power (another failing of those who judge them: when you're obsessed with power you assume that everyone else is too) are having to march to put across the point that they're trying to help, no matter how bad the communication.
  15. Seriously. What a fvcker. In other news, neither Murray nor Djoko bringing any kind of form to 2017 it would seem.